Preview of the big day

June 15, 2010

By Julia Rosen

Are your refresh fingers rested and ready to go?

The closing arguments are nearly here and I for one can’t wait for the nerdy, but incredibly important fun. Let’s go over what the day has in store for us.

Follow all of the liveblogging updates from Courage Campaign Chair and Founder Rick Jacobs right here. The posts and updates will simultaneously be up on both the Prop 8 Trial Tracker and the Testimony: Equality on Trial site, because the Trial Tracker blog is the Testimony blog. Comments show up only on the site that they were posted on. Brian Leubitz will be back to help with some analysis and I will be making sure the trains run on time and may put up an occasional post.

Stay up to date by “Liking” us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter @EqualityOnTrial. If you appreciate all of the work we are doing, please make a contribution to support Testimony: Equality on Trial.

The FireDogLake crew will also be liveblogging over here. For those on Twitter the following people will be livetweeting @moyalynne, @emptywheel, @KateKendell and lwaldal. If you know of others please put them in the comments.

And just because it is good to know what your opposition is up to, the NOM, NOM, NOM people have created their own site. http://www.prop8case.com/. They have picked up the #Prop8 hashtag, so all Tweets pro or con will show up on that site.

As for the day itself. Here is how it is going to go down.

Starting at 8 am the Courage Campaign, Marriage Equality USA and others are holding a rally outside of the courtroom. Go to Facebook to RSVP if you are in San Francisco. There’s also a caravan from Sacramento, that one of our organizers has helped pull together, complete with car decorating.

At at 8:30 am the plaintiffs: Kris Perry, Sandy Stier, Paul Katami, Jeffrey Zarrillo, American Foundation for Equal Rights Board President Chad Griffin will be making brief statements outside of the courthouse.

Then the lawyers get their turn in front of Judge Walker in rapid fire.

10:00 AM – 11:30 AM Plaintiffs give their closing argument (Ted Olson and David Boies)

11:30 AM – 11:45 AM City and County of San Francisco take their turn

11:45 AM – 12:00 PM Governor, Attorney General and county defendants are up

12:00 PM – 1:00 PM Lunch/David Boies and Chad Griffin talk to the media

1:00 PM – 3:15 PM Proponents are on the hot seat (argued by Charles Cooper)

3:15 PM – 3:45 PM Plaintiffs’ get a chance to make their rebuttal

4:00 Plaintiffs are holding a press conference on the day’s events

That press conference time is an estimate. If I had to bet, it will run over, due to lawyers being lawyers and Judge Walker being an active participant in this entire process. Perhaps we should have done a pool on the number of times Judge Walker asks a question of either the plaintiff’s lawyers or the defense, but I digress.

Thanks to all of our loyal readers for sticking around throughout the hiatus and welcome to all those who are new or back for more. Help us get the word out throughout the day by sharing the posts on email, Facebook and Twitter. Like Ted Olson said, it’s crucial that we all continue to talk about this trial.

Answers to Walker’s questions Expect More of the Same

224440 CommentsPreview+of+the+big+day2010-06-16+03%3A09%3A52couragecampaign Leave a Comment

1. Richard A. Walter (s | June 15, 2010 at 1:16 pm

I have posted links on facebook and I will be right here at my computer in the thriving metropolis of Hope Mills, North Carolina all day long.
2. Kathleen | June 15, 2010 at 1:27 pm

Couple of questions..

From what I've heard in news conferences, I was under the impression that Ted Olson would be delivering closing arguments for Plaintiffs. Is David Boies also intending to argue?

Are there any Administrative Defendants left who intend to give oral argument – that 11:45 – 12:00 slot? So far Schwarzenegger, Dean Logan (L.A. County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk), Mark Horton (Director of CA Dept of Public Health and State Registrar of Vital Stats), and Linette Scott (Deputy Director Health Info and Strategic Planning for CA Dept of Public Health) have all waived closing arguments.
3. Ronnie | June 15, 2010 at 1:42 pm

oh the constant click of the mouse to refresh….oh how I miss thee….let me count the ways….click….lol….bring it on…<3…Ronnie
4. Jim | June 15, 2010 at 1:42 pm

Does anyone else find it amusing that NOM's trial site is linking to AFER for transcripts and filings (Under Trial Resources)? Just a little observation…
5. Kathleen | June 15, 2010 at 1:49 pm

And while you're there, be sure to check out NOM's talking points: http://www.nationformarriage.org/site/c.omL2KeN0L…
6. Kathleen | June 15, 2010 at 1:53 pm

I think this might be my favorite:

Question : What’s the harm from SSM? “How can Adam and Steve hurt your marriage?”

Answer: “If courts rule that same-sex marriage is a civil right, then, people like you and me who believe children need moms and dads will be treated like bigots and racists.”

Duh!
7. Ronnie | June 15, 2010 at 1:59 pm

ya think (sarcasm)…..<3…Ronnie
8. Jim | June 15, 2010 at 2:07 pm

"The mean gay people are gonna call us names!"

Forgive me while I leave for a while to go throw up in the sink.
9. Ronnie | June 15, 2010 at 2:07 pm

geeze their arguments sound like a little kid on the playground…"don't mess with marriage" add "or I'll sock ya" and we have an episode of the Little Rascals…..<3…Ronnie
10. Shun | June 15, 2010 at 2:29 pm

I don't think if this was mentioned, but the proponents are asking the judge to even revoke the 18,000 couples that married before prop 8 was passed.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/…

"Andrew Pugno, an attorney for Prop. 8's backers, said in an interview that the sponsors aren't asking Walker to nullify the 18,000 marriages, but only to rule that government agencies, courts and businesses no longer have to recognize the couples as married."
11. Ronnie | June 15, 2010 at 2:37 pm

again with the taking rights AWAY from people..Those Marriages are LEGAL and he wants them to be made illegal essentially taking those couples rights AWAY…you can't do that….this guy….he needs a muzzle…that f-ing PUGnosed…. >( ,,,Ronnie
12. Felyx | June 15, 2010 at 2:56 pm

For those of you who have not yet seen the Prop8Case,com site there is a lovely little message from Maggie. You can tell her words are heartfelt straight from her…well…whatever is in that location. She makes her position clear that this is the trial that never should have been. (Ironically a main reason cited was that the trial brought too much Scopes Monkey Trial-like *media attention* to the issue…which is ALWAYS a good reason to forbid legal redress!!)

BTW, please don't assume that Maggie's reference to Plan C is in anyway a reference to powerlessness…it might be that gays are just lazy…

Anyway…I offer it here for preposterity…so that we can honor -The Ridiculous- in their moment of total and abject humiliation.

With love and great confidence,
Felyx

PS: I noticed that Maggie misspelled the word exercize…I too misspell words at times….like when I have no concept whatsoever of their meaning and purpose…so please don't unfairly judge her…seriously.

The End of the Trial Begins

Posted by Maggie on Tuesday, June 15th at 8:59am

Today, I am getting on an airplane, flying to San Francisco to be at the courthouse for the end of the historic Prop 8 trial. Final arguments begin Wednesday morning at 10 a.m. Pacific time, and I will be live blogging and twittering. You can follow the arguments throughout the day here.

This is the trial that should never have happened. Hundreds of thousands of Californians contributed blood, sweat, tears and treasures to exercize their core civil rights to respond to the California State Supreme Court decision overturning marriage. That's what that decision did: it didn't expand marriage to more people, it abolished the core idea of what marriage is–the union of male and female–and replaced it with a new judicial definition of marriage, ungrounded in the natural order, in our history, or in our constitution.

So the people responded to this judicial intrusion in the way their constitution guaranteed them the right to do: by collecting hundreds of thousands of signatures to put the issue before the people in November 2008. I was part of that effort. Brian Brown, NOM's president, who is a native Californian, played an even more pivotal role. They told us the effort would be doomed to fail: it was too many signatures, too much money, too little time, and besides we were told "the culture has changed and you'll lose at the ballot box."

But we didn't. None of that turned out to be true. More than 7 million Californians, in one of the most liberal states in the country, came together to affirm, once again, that they believe marriage is the union of husband and wife and should not be changed.

And our opponents, who tell us always the culture has changed and that we will lose, moved to plan B: trying to persuade the California Supreme Court to the extraordinary step of overturning its own constitution. That failed.

And so now here we are at Plan C: A court case that will ultimately have gay marriage advocates asking the Supreme Court to impose gay marriage on all 50 states, whether we like it or not.

They found a friend in trial Judge Vaughn Walker, who ordered a show trial that never should have been to add unnecessary expense, to heighten the drama, to give the media a field day, to allow Ted Olson to become a great civil rights hero, at least in his own head. California Ted has replaced Federalist Society Ted Olson.

This is an outrage that never should have happened: 7 million Californians exercised their core civil rights to speak, to donate, to organize and to vote for marriage. Around the country millions of other have invested their time and their treasure. And Ted Olson today will be asking the courts to nullify our right to vote for marriage.

The media is right: this is a civil rights battle. We will fight for our right to protect marriage. Tomorrow, the next phase of that battle begins.
13. Brandy | June 15, 2010 at 2:58 pm

Interesting statement made by Maggie:
(First part is her.. last part is me adjusting finishing up for her)

"This is the trial that should never have happened. Hundreds of thousands of Californians contributed blood, sweat, tears and treasures to exercize their core civil rights to……." WED THE PERSON THEY LOVE

*grrrrrrrrr*
14. Justin Esq. | June 15, 2010 at 3:02 pm

There is no conceivable way that Judge Walker or ANY federal court could revoke the 18,000 existing marriages. The only way the federal courts could do that is by way of some federal regulation, statute, or constitutional provision which prohibits California from recognizing same-sex marriage. There is no such federal law, nor even a colorable argument than any provision of federal law could be interpretted in that way. The CA Supreme Court has already said the marriages are valid under California law, and they have the FINAL word about what is valid under California law. Case closed.

As a lawyer, I'd be really astounded if the Proponents are actually trying to invalidate the 18,000 in this forum. Such a move would show an almost comical ignorance about the federal courts' inability to touch those marriages.
15. Shun | June 15, 2010 at 3:02 pm

She's right about one thing: this trial should not have taken place. If they could've just let people be with the people they love, then we wouldn't have to be here (though it's become a very awesome site/community )…and tons of people wouldn't have had to use so much money, time, and resources.
16. Felyx | June 15, 2010 at 3:05 pm

“Andrew Pugno, an attorney for Prop. 8′s backers, said in an interview that the sponsors aren’t asking Walker to nullify the 18,000 marriages, but only to rule that government agencies, courts and businesses no longer have to recognize the couples as married.”

~"The plaintiffs on behalf of all GLBT everywhere are not asking Olsen and Boies to thoroughly humiliate the proponents in the national media, just to spank their asses on closed circuit court TV so that it can be remorsefully tweeted by Maggie Gallagher throughout the entire world via internet and recorded in the Library of Congress for all of eternity."~

/snark Fe
17. Shun | June 15, 2010 at 3:10 pm

I'm of course very excited about the liveblogging here, but also hers. I'm just wondering how she'll spin every single pro-ss marriage/anti-prop 8 argument into something illogical.
18. Straight Ally #3008 | June 15, 2010 at 3:11 pm

The kids are alright.

[youtube
19. Felyx | June 15, 2010 at 3:15 pm

Those 18.000 marriages are like the proverbial grade school cookie…if one person gets one then it will be a contentious issue until everyone gets one. The proponents can get on their knees in front of Judge Walker and…beg…all they want…those marriages are NEVER going away and all Hell will be raised until everyone gets a cookie!!!

(No Maggie…you can't have ALL the cookies…you have to share.)

Well there is this–the last question:

15. If the court finds Proposition 8 to be unconstitutional, what remedy would “yield to the constitutional expression of the people of California’s will”? See Doc #605 at 18.

This relates to Proponents' argument in their earlier trial brief that "if the juxtaposition of Proposition 8 with any other feature of California law results in constitutional infirmity, it does not follow that Proposition 8 must fall. Rather, any other inconsistent features of California law should yield to the constitutional expression of the people of California’s will."

That is, they are arguing that if Prop 8 is found to be unconstitutional because there are conflicts between Prop 8 and other California laws, these conflicts should be resolved in a way that does not strike down Prop 8.

Their answer to Walker's question mentions two ways this conflict might occur: (1) there is a conflict with there being some ss couples who are married and others who cannot marry – a situation they say was created by the CA Supreme Court when it decided not to make Prop 8 retroactive, and (2) any other feature of California law. Proponents say that to resolve the first conflict in a way that would “yield to the constitutional expression of the people of California’s will” the court should give Prop 8 "retrospective effect."

Pugno can claim in the above cited interview that he's not asking for these marriages to be annulled, but there's nothing in the brief that I can see which makes that clear.

I should probably make clear that I don't think there's the proverbial snowball's chance.. that Walker will invalidate the existing marriages. I'm just letting you know what the Proponents are arguing.

Even if the closing arguments aren't seen on national television people will be able to read what was said and to spread the word to others. People can/will know the truth.

Intelligent people will see the proponents of Prop 8 for the lying, hateful people that they are. Even if they don't spew venom from their throats or hurl slurs in our direction in public their saying that we aren't fit to marry those that we love is, literally, saying that we aren't "as good as they are."

It's been shown throughout this trial that there is no logical, proven reason that same sex marriage shouldn't be legalized. The witnesses for their side were horribly scatterbrained at best and often gave statements that actually supported our cause.

People at NOM can act like they are the ones being persecuted all they want, but I believe that there are enough people out there who can see through their shallow claims.

We will prevail. It may take time, but it will happen. Sooner than later (I believe) people like NOM will have no way to oppress us. I think that once same sex marriage is legalized throughout the nation then that's the end of it. Can they really try to have millions of marriages revoked because they "don't like it" once that happens?

I think that this trial (the transcripts, the closing arguments, the media coverage, and the outcome) could be one of the best things to ever have happened for us. People who care to know are learning (from social scientists) that we are NOT boogeymen and that our couplings aren't bad for the development of children.

Anyway… I'll be keeping my eye on the site throughout the day tomorrow.

Good night all.

I agree. I am also, in a way, just very amazed and grateful by how technology has changed the way things work. I certainly wasn't caring about any sort of political issues more than a decade ago (as a kid)…but I would imagine that w/o liveblogging, all this information would have been a lot harder to come through.

Dear Maggie,

You and yours exercised your constitutional rights and now we are exercising ours. I know you'd like to pick and choose only those parts of the Constitution that work to your advantage, but like it or not, you live in a country whose founders foresaw the grave danger of allowing a majority to strip away the rights of a minority. So we're here now celebrating a long-standing American tradition — that of asking the courts to grant redress for an injustice, to right a grievous wrong.

Subscribing….

Oh man… really? They *are* frakkin bigots!

So say we all!

Yeah – that was actually mentioned in the 'questions – specifically question 15 to both D&P. See D's response: The first sentence. I'd cut/paste it, but strangely enough scribd won't allow it. It does allow me to cut/paste from plaintiff's doument though. Interesting.

Basically, DI's believe that if prop-h8 is 'approved', that it should be made retroactive to those 18K SSM's already legal. Neat.

Now I think I'll go download Kathleen's docs since I'm guessing I can cut/paste them no problem. Thanks scribd.

Here is the quote from D's on this regard in answer to question 15:

If, as Plaintiffs maintain, Proposition 8 cannot be reconciled with its own nonretrospective
application, as interpreted by the California Supreme Court, or with any other feature
of California law, the remedy that would “yield to the constitutional expression of the people of
California’s will” is sustaining Proposition 8 by giving it retrospective effect or invalidating the
conflicting feature of California law.

Kinda says it all eh?

Ahh Kathleen – your Kung-Fu is faster than mine

So say we all!

I hope the Rally is Large and Loud and for those of us who can't be there that there will be a good long video. I wish I could be there but thankfully with the current technology I can come close. I wonder if GetEqual will be at the rally? I hope so.

subscribing

Subscribing

35. Richard A. Walter (s | June 15, 2010 at 11:22 pm

"As a lawyer, I'd really be astounded if the Proponents are actually trying to invalidate the 18,000 in this forum. Such a move would show an almost comical ignorance about the federal courts' inability to touch those marriages."

Justin Esq. that almost comical ignorance is their trademark. Look at what they trotted into the courtroom under the title of "expert witness."
36. Richard A. Walter (s | June 15, 2010 at 11:25 pm

They are definitely smarter than MagPie and Brainless, aren't they?
37. Richard A. Walter (s | June 15, 2010 at 11:28 pm

In fact, by asking that Prop 8 be given a retroactive aspect, they are in fact asking very plainly that those 18,000 marriages be forcibly annulled. And some of those couples live in other states. There are some here in North Carolina.
38. MiGuy | June 16, 2010 at 1:23 am

Subscribeing
39. Follow The Closing Argume&hellip | June 16, 2010 at 8:39 am

[...] is the schedule for the arguments, all in Pacific Time: 10:00 AM – 11:30 AM Plaintiffs give their closing argument (Ted Olson and [...]
40. Prop 8 Closing Arguments &hellip | June 16, 2010 at 9:17 am

[...] of the closing of the trial can be found HERE and [...]

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.

Having technical problems? E-mail equalityontrial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!

Equality On Trial

Login

Quick Hits

Recent Comments